Meanwhile - http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/coleman.asp Comments by Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman refute global warming. Are his remarks an accurate analysis of climate change? Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman provided evidence that convincingly refutes the concept of anthropogenic global warming. His claims are biasly judged as "False". How bias, well he is a meteorologist and co founder of the Weather Channel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...der-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.6dd988dede42 The Washington Post even says he lacks credentials to discuss climate change. Got Science? Got objectivity? Less and less. Okay Robert, I will try one more time. Greenland acquiring ice is just a one year fluke of weather, not climate change, y'see. When Greenland has a record ice loss year, then it is climate change. You just have to get a grasp on climate change vs weather. Then again it could be geothermal. BTW Very cool, breezy, wet in the air late August here. Must be the harbinger of Man Made Global Warming. Yup
Your generic appeal to authority is wrong. My problem with models is that they use they models to create data that doesn't exist and then say the garbage out data proves the models are true. And no they don't all use more than trivial amounts of real data. Those oceanographers who study oceans actually admit there isn't a lot of historical raw data, especially data not taken on the surface.
A geothermal event can just play hell with those models. An under water volcano eruption or tectonic plate spreading event are not in the model. Geothermal is the wild card. I just don't like models because of the assumptions they are based on. Primarily that the model is valid for the study at hand. Usually NOT. Our California rain thwarted El Nino / La Nina these last years. Y'see our flood year was a La Nina ain't gonna rain year. And the year before, the last year of the drought, was suppose to be El Ninozilla! The big one. Suck are models.
The state climatologist for Iowa has published data showing that the number of record high temps in Iowa has been on a five year decline. I have collected temp data in Kansas every 15min from June, 2012 through today and my data shows the same thing, fewer and fewer days over 100degF every year. Yet my data, when subjected to a linear regression analysis, shows the median temp has gone up over the past five years. That can only be attributed to a longer growing season if extreme temps are on the decline. A longer growing season *is* nothing more than having more warm days during the summer. That will *still* drive up the median temp. But it also means more food for starving humanity! It's why Freeman Dyson has taken the global warming advocates to task in the past. They simply do not do a holistic analysis and they mislead people into thinking that an increasing median temp means the earth is going to become a cinder at some point from ever higher temperatures. The fact is that the earth has about 13% more green area today than it did in 1980 according to satellite photos. That can be attributed to higher CO2 levels and to longer growing seasons around the globe. Just look at the shrinking Sahara Desert for a prime example. Did you even bother to go look up global warming holes? What do you think is causing those?
And yet you *still* see the term "global warming" being used. If some regions are not warming and some regions are then it is REGIONAL WARMING, not global warming! The problem is that this statement is WRONG. The models continue to diverge further and further from global satellite readings and weather balloon data - data considered to be the most accurate because it covers more of the globe and requires less "infilling" (i.e. guessing) of temp data for huge portions of the land and sea where insufficient measurement devices exist. Models are meant to explain reality. When they don't explain reality then they are useless. Out of the 50 or so models in common use today they don't agree with themselves, their predictions vary wildly. And the predictions simply don't match reality. Even the IPCC had to finally admit that in their 2014 annual report. And the IPCC had to admit that no one knows why the models are diverging from reality. Excuses like "the heat is hiding in the deep oceans" violate the laws of thermodynamics and require one to believe Jim Kirk and the Enterprise are in orbit "transporting" the heat into the deep oceans. The only way for the deep oceans to warm is if the heat first appears in the ocean surface and no evidence of that has been found. Do *YOU* know how the mean is calculated? Usually it is done by doing a linear regression on daily entries which are are calculated based on an average - the daily high minus the daily low then divided by two! There are now statistical analyses coming out showing that this is *not* the way to calculate the median temperature on a global basis. It would be far more accurate to use hourly data which would capture the actual mean during the entire 24 hour period. The problem is that on a global basis hourly data is not typically available. The Laws of Thermodynamics says you are wrong. The atmosphere near the earth *will* follow the temperature of the earth. It has no choice. Entropy always increases. Heat flows from high energy locations to low energy locations.
It would seem your understanding of the complexities of science might be insufficient to discuss it. The term "Global Warming" has generally been replaced with "Climate Change" because of people like you complaining about it. Yet the globe(Planet) is indeed warming continuously as seen in virtually every measurement for decades. Strangely however it still gets cold in winter.
Once again, ALL presentations of earth's temperature (for 10 years ago, now and into the future) come from models. There is no way to deal with the data available EXCEPT through the use of models. Your decision to reject models is exactly the same as deciding to ignore ALL data on climate.
That's why presentations of climate change point to 5 and 10 year running averages rather than single years or weather that happens to hit California (as opposed to India, or whatever). And, remember that the only way the average temperature of California or any other similarly sized region is determined is through the use of models. So, you are actually rejecting every last bit of climate analysis even for places as small as California.
Interesting point. And, it conforms to depictions from NASA and NOAA that regions of the US may actually get cooler - not even just a matter of having fewer record breaking temperature highs. But, let's remember that the food problem is one of distribution. More food grown in Iowa (or the Sahara) does NOT help anyone on some other place unless those people can pay for it. And, places which can not grow their own food rarely if ever have the money to pay Iowa for it. The world grows plenty of food to feed everyone already. Dyson's argument about co2 isn't good enough, because co2 is not the only requirement for growing food and none of these effects from warming cover the earth in a way that supports agriculture. One of the root causes of war in Syria, for example, is that their multi-year drought caused millions to move from farming regions into the cities, where their government had no way to handle that influx. The result is that Syria is expensive not just for the locals, but even for us here in the USA. In Bangladesh, changing agricultural conditions are causing people to try to go to India, which has a major wall against that influx. Plus, China is working on changing the course of a significant river in order to keep the water in China rather than allowing it to water Bangladeshi agriculture. We can not afford more failed states. Neither of the cases above, along with others in South America and other continents is helped by more co2. And, even those who minimize human caused climate effects such as Dr. Curry point to water being an issue of huge concern, including from a national security standpoint. Ask our military. They confirm this, too. And, they point out that the thawing of the Arctic is opening a major and highly contested border with Russia. Plus, none of this touches on the fact that a disproportionate number of people live on the seacoasts of the world - and that people movement is a major problem.
well first ten years isn't climate and second simulated data from the models isn't real data. If a drug manufacturer tried that crap, the government would shut them down.
Scientists use the term "climate change". Global warming is a popular press term. Scientists have NEVER suggested that all places on earth will warm (or cool) equally. That is not what NASA and NOAA say. And, it isn't what scientists and scientific organizations in other countries are saying. No, the oceans are totally capable of absorbing heat - in fact, in changing how much heat they absorb. Also, measurement of ocean temperatures was neglected. Absolute and TOTAL nonsense. Calculation of earth's temperature is FAR more complex a task than that. What you're are missing is that there are more places for the heat to go. I'm not denying laws of thermodynamics. I'm pointing out that the lower atmosphere and earth's surface do not form a closed system. Thus your application of those laws is nonsense. Low atmospheric temperatures are NOT a valid surrogate for actual surface temperature. They are part of the model.
Ten years isn't climate?? I don't know anything about "simulated data". All data is handled by models. It's the only way to deal with the size and complexity of the numerous types of observation. Drug manufacturers DO use models in their development and testing. I don't know what you have against models. The fact of the matter is that these problems are not so simplistic as being able to add n results and divide by n.
Drug manufacturers have to have clinical trials not computer model trials to get FDA approval; weather trends are measured over a minimum of 30 years to be considered climate; climate models do not have any predictive reliability because the data is altered to "explain" past results inconsistent with the modelers' expectation which skews them, and you cannot convert every greenhouse gas to CO2 in a model and even consider being taken seriously when 8 to 10% of greenhouse gases are attributed just to refrigerants having nothing to do with Big Oil.
Clinical trials are ONE step. And, the modeling that is used includes the data gathered from clinical trials, but also throughout the design (where scientific exploration pretty much always includes models) and in testing that doesn't include humans. The design and results of clinical trials include many variables and it ends up being significantly complex. Remember that drugs that go on the market include some that can even cause death. Trials include people - with people coming in amazingly wide variety - size, age, gender, medical history, ability to follow a drug protocol, race, etc., etc. This is one of the reasons drug development is so expensive. Charlatans try to suggest that "model" is a bad word - attempting to sell the use of models as a reason for doubt. It's just pure anti-science, and all too often our public has had too little science education to call them on it.
So you don't like data assimilation processing? Okay, fine. Then tell me, how would YOU determine the atmospheric properties of a limited-size 3D region of the atmosphere? What specifically is it about our current techniques that you disagree with?
Why is it all the output graphs rise from left to right when it is well established that multidecadal variability exists?
Al Gore still uses the term global warming. Perhaps you should take this up with him? According to the RSS and UHC satellite data the earth hasn't warmed globally for over 18 years. Even the IPCC admitted that in 2014 and admitted no one knows why. And, as I pointed out, "warming" is not bad if it is due to longer growing seasons instead of higher temperatures. It means more food for the hungry!
China diverting a river is *NOT* any kind of evidence for global warming. Longer growing seasons helps *everywhere*. You keep missing the point that the mean can go up from more warm days just as easily as it can from ever increasing high temperatures. AGW advocates forcing the third world to use alternative energy sources hurts them economically far more than global warming every will. Alternative energy simply cannot support the industrialization the third world needs to accomplish in order to advance. Droughts happen in the Middle East. It's why so much of the area is classed as desert or semi-arid desert. Just like the drought that happened in the Great Plains a decade ago (another semi-arid desert) and in CA more recently these droughts are not brought on by global warming. They are natural occurrences that have been happening for more than a thousand years, the Dust Bowl is just a recent example for the Great Plains. There *is* a reason these areas are classed as semi-arid DESERTS. Nothing the AGW advocates push will stop global warming if it is actually happening, therefore those living on the coasts *will* be impacted sooner or later. It can't be prevented. Rather than making paupers out of first world countries trying to delay the inevitable it would be far better to spend the money on relocating those populations in danger.
The talking points you use are inaccurate and have been debunked many times by many people, falling back on the "Al Gore" stuff is particularly telling. Rather than wasting my time here with factual data I will simply state the only thing that actually matters. It does not matter what you or I think...If you are correct we have nothing to worry about. If I am correct there is nothing we can do even if somehow everyone got together to try.
The REMSS and University of Alabama groups say the figures are 0.18C/decade and 0.13C/decade of warming for RSS and UAH respectively. I will say there was a 15 year pause from 1998 to about 2013. Yet despite the half dozen or so pauses (one of which lasted 40 years) in the last 100 years the global mean temperature still keeps going up.
China's actions are an example of responses to climate change that have more global consequences. The discussion, you may remember, was about consequences. CO2 was presented as if it mitigated impact. "Growing season" is meaningless in the absence of adequate water. No nation is being required to do ANYTHING. ALL response is determined locally, including goals. So, everything you have said on that is in error. Your assumptions about what can be accomplished are close. It is true that there is no plan that can halt warming, and there probably won't be one. But, that does not mean doing nothing is the right option. Reducing warming remains a seriously important objective, as we can significantly reduce the impact.
And yet you can find NOTHING from any scientists contradicting the term "global warming". Even the IPCC reports, supposedly a document created by scientists still use the term. It *is* useful for scientists grasping for funding, it makes their research sound as if it is desperately needed. And THAT is the problem. THIS is what the scientists at the Remote Sensing Systems organization are saying: I DID NOT SAY THE OCEANS WERE INCAPABLE OF ABSORBING HEAT! You have just made up a strawman argumentative fallacy to flail away at. You can flail away at it all by yourself. You are confusing the prediction models with realty. The models don't force reality to conform. The models are supposed to conform to reality. The *predictive models* are complex. Determining the global mean based on measurements isn't all that complex. The earth and its atmosphere *is* a closed system as far as thermodynamics is concerned. In thermodynamics a closed system is one where mass cannot enter or leave the system, only energy can. That *is* what the earth and its atmosphere consists of! Like most AGW proponents, you truly do not understand thermodynamics at all. The lower atmospheric temperature is *certainly* dependent on the temperature of the earth. Pure conduction will increase the lower atmosphere temp as will convection and IR radiation absorbed by any particles in the lower atmosphere that can absorb them, e.g. CO2 and H2O. Stop quoting AGW religious dogma.
Go away. You are nothing but a troll. My talking points are ACCURATE. The State Climatologist of Iowa's data concerning high temps in that state have not been debunked. If you google "global warming holes" you will find all kinds of scientific papers on them.
